28 October 2012 1:03 AM

Enter a church and you should hear echoes of eternity - not the Sugababes

This is Peter Hitchens' Mail on Sunday column:

I think the Church of England has just committed suicide. Its decision to allow grotesque, overblown weddings in its churches is an act so desperate and hopeless that I fear there is no return.Beneath the ancient arches of our parish churches we shall soon be enduring the music of the Sugababes and watching trained owls deliver matching rings to overdressed couples sitting on fake thrones, as photographers lean in as close as they can, to film the crucial moment.With the support of the strangely overrated John Sentamu, Archbishop of York, parsons are to be instructed to swallow their doubts and permit any kind of rubbishy vulgarity. The excuse is that, in some way, this treatment will persuade the men and women involved to forsake the cocktail bar and the tanning parlour, and become regular churchgoers.Everyone but a bishop can see quite clearly that it will do no such thing. The victims of these nasty, extravagant ceremonies will never enter a church again.Just as Groucho Marx wouldn’t belong to a club that would have him as a member, people will have no respect for a church that is obviously so desperate to welcome them that it will take money in return for ditching its principles.The whole point of churches is to disturb our day-to-day lives with the haunting rhythms and poetry of eternity. If we go into them and find that they are just like the nearest shopping mall, only with nicer architecture, then we will turn away disappointed.I don’t know if anything could have saved Christianity in England from becoming a despised minority religion. But I am quite sure that these pathetic attempts to appease the spirit of the modern age have made things much, much worse.Even 50 years ago, the Christian religion still had the attention and loyalty of many serious people. Now, even those of us who still stick to it find it hard to defend our supposed leaders.I suppose it will continue to survive in a few odd corners, its ceremonies performed for foreign tourists in the more picturesque cathedrals.But for the rest, many centuries of faith, hope and charity are ending not with a bang, or even a whimper, but with ‘Here Come The Girls’.

Spiritual symbol... or centre of a new world power?

How little we know about the Islamic world, even though a large and growing number of British subjects are Muslims. I am strangely haunted by recent pictures of Mecca.They show a monstrous clock tower dominating all around, surmounted by a huge crescent. To me, it looks more like the burgeoning capital of a new global power than the austere spiritual goal of millions of devout pilgrims.What a pity that I cannot go there to see for myself. I’ve found my way into North Korea, into Soviet nuclear facilities and the remotest corners of China. I’ve even slipped into Iranian Shia shrines, and been much impressed with the devotion of the worshippers.Yet for reasons I’ve never fully understood, Islam’s holiest place is closed to Christians. How are we going to understand each other properly if such barriers continue to stand?

Our pointless cult of human sacrifice

Have you noticed how keen we are getting on human sacrifice? I don’t (quite yet) mean the actual slaughter of people to soothe the rage of angry pre-Christian gods.But I do mean the furious denunciations of individuals, whether it be Andrew Mitchell or Jimmy Savile, usually done to quell the wrath of the mob. In many cases, the mob is furious because it hates in other people the things it dislikes in itself. How many of Mr Mitchell’s attackers have never sworn when they shouldn’t have, and have never lost their tempers?How many of Savile’s noisiest critics are secret viewers of pornography? It’s not that I want to defend Mr Mitchell for being rude, let alone defend the Savile creature for his gross appetites. It’s just that I don’t think frenzies do any good.When all this is over, the Government will be the same (as it always is after some Minister or other has been driven from office). And the BBC will be the same too, still judge and jury in its own cause and scornful of conservative opinions and morals held by millions of its licence-payers.For a lot of people, the last Election was, at heart, a chance to pillory and destroy Gordon Brown (or the person they imagined him to be). My belief is that they were mainly furious with themselves for having been so completely fooled by Mr Brown’s smooth sidekick, Anthony Blair. But as they ejected the scowling Labour leader from Downing Street, they replaced him with a man whose politics are pretty much exactly the same. Another human sacrifice.A grown-up country is interested in policies, not in punishing individuals. But we are not grown-ups any more, just children rushing this way and that as the TV tells us.

Had they lived to be really old, would Stalin and Hitler have ended up as pottering old geezers in straw hats, peering out at us from behind grizzled beards? And would we have softened towards them as a result? Well, I cannot soften to the old killer and torturer Fidel Castro, despite recent pictures of him doddering around Havana, looking as if he has escaped from a pensioners’ outing. I still see blood, and hear screams.

This government, like the last, is very good at figures. Crime figures are down. Unemployment figures are down. Inflation figures are down. Funny, isn’t it, that in our actual, real lives, crime and disorder get worse, prices rocket upwards and factories are closing. How can that be?

When I read in August that the talented Hollywood film director Tony Scott had killed himself without any apparent good reason, I was fairly sure that pretty soon we would find that the poor man had been taking ‘antidepressants’.Well, a preliminary autopsy has found ‘therapeutic’ levels of an ‘antidepressant’ in his system. I take no pleasure in being right, but as the scale of this scandal has become clear to me, I have learned to look out for the words ‘antidepressant’ or ‘being treated for depression’ in almost any case of suicide and violent, bizarre behaviour. And I generally find it. The science behind these pills is extremely dubious. Their risks are only just beginning to emerge. It is time for an inquiry.

It is now 25 days since I asked Edward Miliband’s office if he had received private tuition while at his comprehensive school. Why am I still waiting for an answer?

If you want to comment on Peter Hitchens, click on Comments and scroll down

Mr Dodd, do not bother to answer, lets believe that we are a single human race and do not differ at all; other than skin colour. Thus meaning you cannot differ from Mr Rooney or others as you all come from Adam & Eve.

Mr Vallance, I’m sad to see that you have written to say I have a poor understanding of science because I have used the word of species; the reason I used the word is simply because we are not a single human race. I use the word of human species because we do differ, in various ways; such as most professors believe in, if you read their reports of some the names I gave you in a comment to Mr Doyle ( 3 /11/12). Here is a quote from a Sir about human races, “Races of men are differentiated in the same way as well marked species of animals.” SIR ARTHUR KEITH. I’m not a scientist and indeed will never ever be one; we do not all have the same 100% of genes in us that is certain, we do not all have the same blood. Our bone structures differ more in some races far more than others; the shape of our skull differs to some other races, the Chinese race has a lower testosterone than our European race and indeed lower than the African race which is higher than ours. There are other issues that cannot be talked about under free speech, hence the reason I cannot mention them. I do believe that different races and species are handed down different things in their brain before they are born; hence the reason we can differ. So I hope I’m not being offensive when I say that we are not a single human race that does not differ; so the word of human species is not offensive. I have said before and got no answer about a Hound dog breeding with a poodle; would there be any clash of genes, or is it a natural act of nature?

The differences you mention are maybe real enough but are not really anything to do with different races being different species. They are more like the differences between breeds of dogs as others have pointed out E.g. a Westie has very different dome dimensions to a great dane but they are not different speicies. you appear to have a very poor understanding of the science you are trying to comment on.
It is possible of course that given enough time and geographic separation such differences could continue to develop to the point that the races could speciate but this does not appear to have happened to date.

Of course also the exact definition of what degree of genetic difference constitutes speciation is not available.
However it seems this is because the general scientific definition of speciation isnt about genetic difference persay.
Instead it discussed barriers to gene flow i.e. gene transmission through time/breeding. As far I know different species of some life forms are almost genetically identical but they have evolved behavioural requirements for mating that the different species no longer meet for each other so breeding does not take place.

So given this definition and the rather obvious fact that barriers to gene flow between the races. Arguing that trivial genetic differences define species boundaries appears to no scientific basis. You see its not about whether any quantifiable genetic differences exist (they undoubtedly do as I pointed out a long time back) but what they mean on a biological basis and what they definitely dont mean in humans at least is speciation has occurred.

Mr Dodd, here is your reply about different species of skull size and shape;
Mr Rawlings: I am what you would probably call a white european. However, my skull shape and size is markedly different from those of, say, Wayne Rooney, or Stephen Fry, to name two random examples.
Am I therefore to conclude that I am a different species from those gentlemen?
Posted by: Tony Dodd | 09 November 2012 at 09:34 PM
Clearly you lack any idea of how different species differ, telling me that Europeans structures are all different; hence you are telling everyone that there is no such thing as a species. I think you need to see a doctor and ask him if you are a species, or a man from space.

Mr Rawlings, if you wish to stay on this blog I would advise you to stick to the host's rules. For example, one should not misrepresent another's position, nor accuse another of lying without evidence.
You state that my response was not "factual" - a rather cowardly way of accusing someone of lying, it seems.
Please say precisely what part of my post was " non factual", or perhaps rephrase your accusation.

Mr Doyle, here is the questions I ask you,Mr Doyle, please try and understand your earlier response; in which you clearly stated (4th Nov) that we are one human race and one single species. Can you show me any professor’s views on we are all medically the same; like a horse that is no different from a donkey. I think you have not a clue about differences in human species, hence the reason that you are superior to anyone that talks and lives in reality. Here is some questions for you to not answer, like you have not on other questions; 1: is your European skull the same size and shape as an African skull 2: is your European bone structure different from African bone structure, 3 how many different bloods types are there in our human species, 4: and finally, please give us all including Mr Hitchens; some medical facts of how advanced you are over medical experts.
Posted by: A. G. Rawlings | 05 November 2012 at 06:59 PM
Can you show me what comment you sent in reply to these question?

Mr Thomas, I have had a problem since I was born, to which I cannot get cured from; it is the lack of being brainwashed, hence the reason I get criticised for factual evidence. Most people like yourself and others only want to believe what they want to and never read real factual history or medical facts of human species. Why have you and others never attempted to answer questions they seem to no nothing about, if you read the answer from Mr Dodd about brain and skull differences; he is unable to answer with any factual responce. You are saying that I should not mention anything that is fact; hence the reason for our nation and race are going down the pan that brainwashing requires, hope to see you supporting our nations democracy; that is no more than a brainwashed fallacy.

"I have ask if we differ from non-European species in skull shape and size, no reply. Do we differ in bone size, again no answer; do we differ in heredity genes, no answer. Are we all born the same, no answer"

AG.

But all these questions have been answered AG, more than once. You don't acknowledge, or challenge the explanations. Take the bone size for example: My big dog/wee dog post on Nov 4 pointed to the fact that the genes (within the common pool) responsible for large or small bones in the same species; are either dominant; or recessive, which explains why one dog is big; and the other small. Its the very same for the Homosapein. The other questions have also been dealt with, but I'm not going over all that again.
To conclude, you are simply wrong, wrong, and wrong again, and its a safe bet that none of the eminent scientists you name; have ever said anything about there being more than one species of human alive today, lest they be the laughing stock of their profession.
You have much to learn, so you had better get started (me too, but I started some time ago). Adieu.

1. Moderns live in the world of Descartes, who made the split between Res Extensa, things of extension (Body) or things material and ostensibly quantitative, and Res Cogitans, things of the Mind under which was to lumped all that was not reducible to quantity. This led to puzzles about the relationship of Mind to Body.

Cartesian Dualism, and similar positions like Property Dualism, accepts the basic premises of Descartes and modern philosophy, and maintain that Mind is not reducible to matter. It has a hard time explaining the relationship between the two, however.

Materialists simply claim that Res Cogitans is reducible to Res Extensa, but materialism is essentially incoherent. Idealists, like Berkeley, took the opposite position that there was no such thing as Mind-independent matter; a position that is hard to prevent from sliding into full solipsism.

However, pre-modern thinkers, like Aristotle, Plato, and Aquinas, simply did not hold the basic Cartesian and modern assumptions about the split between Res Cogitans and Res Extensa (or even the existence of such categories), hence the Mind-Body problem does not exist for them. This means one doesn't have to simply choose between the incoherence of materialism, problematic Cartesian Dualism, and the rather unpalatable Berkeleyan Idealism.

2. I was a little imprecise, perhaps. By spirit I meant not just the Holy Ghost, but also the Divine, or spiritual, in general, as well as the spiritual side of man. You were derisive towards the term Spirit and I simply pointed out that, as the Intellectual or Intelligible is surely an essential part of the Spirit, not only is the Spirit (the Intellectual/Intelligible) an obvious part of everyday human existence, it is the very grounds and ordering agents of the sensible or material.

When I talked of Number, Geometry, Ratios, etc., I was simply pointing out that these cannot be reduced to the sensible, they are irreducibly Intellectual/Intelligible, and yet a basic and foundational part of the sensible or material world.

3. It really depends what you mean by simply wanting to tell a story. I believe that there is a great desire amongst humanity to express itself imaginatively. I, however, think that the human imagination, when normally functioning, does not simply create according to any fleeting impulse or desire for distraction. Rather, the imagination seeks to express essential aspects of human experience, human nature, and of the creation, which leads back, I feel, to the points I have made previously on Fairy Tales and Folk Lore.

Mr Rawlings: I am what you would probably call a white european. However, my skull shape and size is markedly different from those of, say, Wayne Rooney, or Stephen Fry, to name two random examples.
Am I therefore to conclude that I am a different species from those gentlemen?

With regard to the comments on my views of different species, as yet not one commenter has come up with any factual evidence, stating we are all the same. I must confess how people so well intelligent cannot answer a few simple questions; I have ask if we differ from non-European species in skull shape and size, no reply. Do we differ in bone size, again no answer; do we differ in heredity genes, no answer. Are we all born the same, no answer; so I think it is best to rant and rave, but not to come up to answer simple questions, or indeed not to read medical professors, who know far more that I do.So let us hope that Mr Doyle, Mr Dodd and indeed Mr Thomas can give us medical fact that we are all the same in the questions I have asked and perhaps who is the most intelligent race in the world?

Dermot Doyle - sadly I'm getting too old for late nights, poorly paid and unappreciated in dingy pubs.
Given the contributions here, I assume it is fair for me to conclude, despite the dark, mysterious allusions of Mr Rawlings, that all humans are the same species of primate. Although I suspect that's not exactly news to biologists.

I'm starting to think that A. G. Rawlings is of a species that is, I'm pleased to say, extremely rare. A thought that might bring supporters of a certain political party rushing to defend his views in their usual revealing fashion. Watch this space...

"It's a simple question: can different species interbreed - a yes or no will suffice if possible."

Tony Dodd.

Hello Mr Dodd, hope you're still managing to make a buck in the wasteland that was once entertaindom. Just imagine, falling in love with a beautiful woman, but not being able to marry her, because she being a different species; would mean you couldn't have children together.
Just realised that I never checked if my wife was a different species (she has North African traits) before I married her, no wonder she doesn't understand me.

Mr Dodd, let me put your comment correct as it is not, interbreeding can only be done within the same species; cross breeding is with another species. If I give you an answer about my views of cross breeding it would not be printed, on the grounds of racism. So try an learn from medical professor's views that how we differ.

And the answer is yes but the fertility of the off spring can be limited or non existent.

Mules are a cross between a horse and a Donkey? and I think horses can breed with Zebras I think mules are almost always infertile and I dont actually know about the outcome of a mating between a horse and a zebra.

If some people on this blog are worried about teenagers having sex, why is no one saying anything about the way in which condoms are sold in supermarkets?
Why is no one saying that supermarkets should not sell them to anyone younger than 16 just they do not sell alcohol to anyone younger than 18?

Just to clarify, and perhaps trivial, but it's important in the interest of understanding, the "yes I am" was appertaining to the latter part (species) of the question on Nov 3 ("are you telling me that we are one human race and one single species?").
I failed to notice the race bit when I copy/pasted *your* words, and I accept it may have confused you.

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this weblog until the moderator has approved them. They must not exceed 500 words. Web links cannot be accepted, and may mean your whole comment is not published.